The Tennis Thread
Discussion
Opinion of Craig Pickering (GB 100m runner and GB Bobsleigh) here: http://craigpickering.com/2016/03/sharapova/
Even confesses to his own drug-taking
Even confesses to his own drug-taking
JNW1 said:
Presumably she wasn't questioned because the substance wasn't on the banned list? Based on comments from people in the know it sounds like it should have been but if the authorities allowed it to slip through the net (no pun intended!) then in theory a player hasn't done anything wrong by taking it and therefore no questions were necessary?
I think its a fair question for her "family" Doctor as to why he has prescribed this medication for 10 years when it appears most if not all people who need it for an illness use it for up to six weeks.The family Doctor quote amuses me because it intended to take away the performance enhancing properties and if it had been given by her coach questions would have been asked. Something stinks about this.
ewenm said:
Opinion of Craig Pickering (GB 100m runner and GB Bobsleigh) here: http://craigpickering.com/2016/03/sharapova/
Even confesses to his own drug-taking
Can't disagree with what he's saying; it's up to the authorities to make and police the rules and the athletes to abide by them. As a layman the thing I still don't really understand is why it took so long for Meldonium to be put on the list of banned substances; the evidence for it being a performance enhancing drug seems quite clear or is that just people and the media now being wise after the event? Even confesses to his own drug-taking
johnxjsc1985 said:
I think its a fair question for her "family" Doctor as to why he has prescribed this medication for 10 years when it appears most if not all people who need it for an illness use it for up to six weeks.
The family Doctor quote amuses me because it intended to take away the performance enhancing properties and if it had been given by her coach questions would have been asked. Something stinks about this.
The short answer is that she almost certainly wasn't taking it to combat an illness, she was taking it to enhance performance (and legally so until the end of 2015). The mistake her and her team made was to continue using it after it went onto the banned substance list; stupid beyond belief but probably unrealistic to expect her to come out and admit she'd been taking a performance enhancing drug for the last 10 years - doesn't look or sound good even if it was legal for most of the time she was doing it!The family Doctor quote amuses me because it intended to take away the performance enhancing properties and if it had been given by her coach questions would have been asked. Something stinks about this.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
how many games has she won on a long tie break or in the third set by a small margin. Those extra training session's taken over ten years will have built her stamina and strength to a level not matched by her opponents who worked just as hard and has as much ability but need more time to recover.She took this drug banned or not because it helped her develop her strength and ability to recover quickly and go again.
If I had been beaten by her over the last ten years by the odd point I would be feeling pretty angry today.
Controversial point here, and I'm ready to get shot down in flames, but...
What is wrong with taking performance enhancing drugs?
Doping arose to enhance performance, but was only seen as bad because it was mostly HARMFUL for the individuals taken the drug.
Back in the 70s, the Eastern block athletes were sending themselves to an early grave by using steroids. Female shot-putters could only be competitive if they had a male physique that would win Mr Atlas.
But if there are drugs that can be taken that enhance performance, to increase stamina, to speed recovery, to help train more, to improve strength, AND it is not harmful, then why not as a human race use such drugs?
We develop drugs to survive life better, to recover from ailments faster and more effectively, to prolong life.
If I have the opportunity to take such a drug as an amateur sportsman or even just fitness enthusiast, then I want to take the pill.
If as a result I can exercise more, then I will be fitter, reduce fat and the excesses of modern living, strengthen my heart and live a longer, more active and more fulfilling life.
If a drug is available to all, then it's not cheating.
In any sport we may take whatever action possible to take advantage, be it through the equipment we use, the clothing we wear, the training we do, the tactics we adopt.
Next we'll be told that sport should only be based on natural ability and that training is cheating. (Is altitude training cheating, for example?)
If the human race can better itself, and those measures are equal, then why exclude them from sport?
As for Sharapova's case, I see one of two scenarios:
1. There's been an almighty cock-up in that someone should have spotted that this drug is now on the list, and should have told Sharapova to stop using it. So an infringement of the rules, but a simple error and not an attempt at cheating.
2. Knowing that the drug is now banned, the decision was taken to continue using it, and risk absolutely everything (including £100m of advertising contracts), because an assessment was made in the likelihood of detection with the conclusion that the risk is so small as to warrant continuance of taking the substance.
I know which scenario I think was most likely the case..
What is wrong with taking performance enhancing drugs?
Doping arose to enhance performance, but was only seen as bad because it was mostly HARMFUL for the individuals taken the drug.
Back in the 70s, the Eastern block athletes were sending themselves to an early grave by using steroids. Female shot-putters could only be competitive if they had a male physique that would win Mr Atlas.
But if there are drugs that can be taken that enhance performance, to increase stamina, to speed recovery, to help train more, to improve strength, AND it is not harmful, then why not as a human race use such drugs?
We develop drugs to survive life better, to recover from ailments faster and more effectively, to prolong life.
If I have the opportunity to take such a drug as an amateur sportsman or even just fitness enthusiast, then I want to take the pill.
If as a result I can exercise more, then I will be fitter, reduce fat and the excesses of modern living, strengthen my heart and live a longer, more active and more fulfilling life.
If a drug is available to all, then it's not cheating.
In any sport we may take whatever action possible to take advantage, be it through the equipment we use, the clothing we wear, the training we do, the tactics we adopt.
Next we'll be told that sport should only be based on natural ability and that training is cheating. (Is altitude training cheating, for example?)
If the human race can better itself, and those measures are equal, then why exclude them from sport?
As for Sharapova's case, I see one of two scenarios:
1. There's been an almighty cock-up in that someone should have spotted that this drug is now on the list, and should have told Sharapova to stop using it. So an infringement of the rules, but a simple error and not an attempt at cheating.
2. Knowing that the drug is now banned, the decision was taken to continue using it, and risk absolutely everything (including £100m of advertising contracts), because an assessment was made in the likelihood of detection with the conclusion that the risk is so small as to warrant continuance of taking the substance.
I know which scenario I think was most likely the case..
anonymous said:
[redacted]
WADA said:
‘WADA is aware of the ongoing, and highly publicized, case concerning tennis player, Maria Sharapova. As is our normal process, and in order to protect the integrity of the case, WADA will refrain from commenting further until a decision has been issued by the International Tennis Federation (ITF). Following that, WADA will review the reasons for the decision and subsequently decide whether or not to use its independent right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
We can confirm that meldonium was added to the 2016 Prohibited List which took effect on 1 January 2016, having previously been on WADA’s monitoring program for the duration of 2015.
Meldonium was added [to the Prohibited List] because of evidence of its use by athletes with the intention of enhancing performance.’
Her team was warned. That's not speculation. We can confirm that meldonium was added to the 2016 Prohibited List which took effect on 1 January 2016, having previously been on WADA’s monitoring program for the duration of 2015.
Meldonium was added [to the Prohibited List] because of evidence of its use by athletes with the intention of enhancing performance.’
WADA said:
How does Wada communicate with athletes?
Sharapova said Wada sent her an email on December 22 to inform her of the changes to the 2016 banned list, which were to take effect from January 1 2016.
She said she failed to "click" on a link to the email attachment which would have shown that the drug she had used for a decade was now off-limits.
The only bias is with some on here who refuse to call a duck a duck. Not so Nike, TAG Heuer and Porsche Sharapova said Wada sent her an email on December 22 to inform her of the changes to the 2016 banned list, which were to take effect from January 1 2016.
She said she failed to "click" on a link to the email attachment which would have shown that the drug she had used for a decade was now off-limits.
We are supposed to believe that a large and multi faceted team of skilled individuals who support an athlete, not just any athlete but one of the highest paid female athletes who herself has a ruthless marketing ideology, not to mention Max Eisenbud, didn't 'click on an email from WADA.....really, are you joking?Unless a sport, and it's governing body can be ruthless with cheats it will never have integrity.
The "legalise PEDs" argument is interesting. I see a few counter-arguments:
- Harmless - how do we know the long-term effects of taking the various PEDs? Do the long-term trials exist on large sample populations?
- Arms race - let's say EPO is harmless long term, so everyone takes it. Then you're right back where you are now, with some people no doubt willing to take harmful stuff for the short term gain. The problem is identical to now and you've solved nothing by allowing the "harmless" drugs, other than guaranteeing everyone needs to be on them.
- Ethics - I race because I want to compete against my peers to the best of my ability. I don't want it to be the best of my ability plus my pharmacist's ability (see the arms race). Also I don't want my daughter to grow up thinking that to enjoy and compete at sport you need to take drugs to do it. I've probably raced against dopers although I don't know it for sure. I KNOW that I'm clean though.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The facts are pretty clear. A substance was added to the site, it took me about 10 seconds to find it. The only balls in this case are the ones dropped by Miss Sharapova and her team. Of course the corporate sponsors are running, that's what they do and it's quite fair, those are the terms. I'm not prejudiced against her, she took a prohibited substance and has been caught. Until evidence to the contrary she is a cheat. anonymous said:
[redacted]
Quite simple, the person who worked hard without the use of PED's is honest, the person who didn't is a cheat if the drug was on the banned substance list. If the drug was performance enhancing but not banned - and an athlete knew that and exploited the loophole by using it - they may not have acted illegally but IMO their achievements are tainted.anonymous said:
[redacted]
I take your point but rightly or wrongly one is illegal and the other isn't.anonymous said:
[redacted]
You may well have a point when you say some of the other performance enhancing aids ought to be considered as well but just because there are other things that can give an advantage doesn't make the targeting of PED's wrong IMO. There are things apart from alcohol which affect people's ability to drive but does that mean it's wrong to deal severely with those convicted of drink-driving? anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's true that the last perfect man was crucified! However, I think Sharapova knows her and her team have screwed-up with this and it's all had the feel of a publicity machine trying to get in a pre-emptive strike to limit the damage; trying to convince people she was taking this drug for 10 years with no intent to improve her performance is just insulting everyone's intelligence in my view.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Are you two making slightly different points? One about catching cheats and one about punishing cheats?I'm all for frequent, random in and out of competition testing. I want people caught. However, I believe the punishments meted out for each person caught should be proportionate to the severity of the cheating. So a life ban for Armstrong's years of cheating, manipulation and bullying is fine, a short ban for Ohuroughu's (sp?) 3 missed tests is also fine. Both are "cheats", i.e. broke the rules, but both do not merit the same punishment.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
What's your "it is not cheating" scenario?Breaking the rules is the definition of cheating, and in doping cases there is strict liability on the athlete. If it can be shown that the athlete was maliciously doped (has this ever been shown?) or it was inadvertent (the US/UK Vicks case for the British Skier for example), the resulting punishment may be small and the athlete may garner some sympathy. A retrospective TUE may also be applied but I'd still expect punishment in that case for being so inept with at basic administration
anonymous said:
[redacted]
My issue with Sharapova is that the explanation for the use of the drug which she gave in her press conference just doesn't seem to stack-up with expert medical opinion; seems that for a genuine medical condition you wouldn't take it for more than about 6 weeks yet she's been taking it for 10 years? Now even if the real purpose was to enhance performance that doesn't actually make her a cheat for most of the time she was using it because it wasn't a banned substance; however, I think she'd do herself a favour by being honest about what she was doing - chances are she'll have to admit it eventually and in the meantime she's going to look daft if she continues to stick with the "family doctor" explanation...anonymous said:
[redacted]
I disagree - cheating is breaking the rules. If it's inadvertent, then the punishment may be mild. If it's deliberate then the punishment may be harsh.Maybe there's a difference between "she cheated" and "she's a cheat". Just reading that, I see "she's a cheat" as more damning than "she cheated" as it implies an ongoing mindset rather than a single infraction.
Maybe "she broke the rules" (or "she cheated") is an accurate statement but "she's a cheat" is yet to be determined.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Completely. I wasn't aware that the speed limit had changed from 40mph to 30mph, I was still guilty of speeding. Ignorance cannot be claimed as mitigation, the list is published quite clearly. One of the highest earning (and endorsed..well, not now) athletes on the planet with a lengthy career in the sport doesn't know, and doesn't have anyone in her team who does fully understand what supplements are on the prohibited list? Quack.One of the issues highlighted by this latest stramash is the lack of resources that WADA and the anti-doping bodies operate with.
Perhaps if a more reasonable level of contribution per sport was made we might have greater clarity as to what substances Athletes are actually taking and how they are taking them.
A system where all elite participants had to declare all legal medicines, PEDs and supplements with a penalty system for those found retrospectively to have omitted substances would give a much better idea of how level the playing field is.
Perhaps if a more reasonable level of contribution per sport was made we might have greater clarity as to what substances Athletes are actually taking and how they are taking them.
A system where all elite participants had to declare all legal medicines, PEDs and supplements with a penalty system for those found retrospectively to have omitted substances would give a much better idea of how level the playing field is.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Her explanation is indeed stretching credibility, especially when other Russian athletes were apparently using this drug purely to enhance performance. I do agree that people should be innocent until proven guilty but if it waddles like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck the chances are it's probably a duck! anonymous said:
[redacted]
But I do. Breaking the rules to gain an advantage, in this case doping. I say she's a cheat. The same I said Armstrong was a cheat. I never understood then why so many people hung onto the idea that professional sport wasn't by its very nature 'dirty', this is another example. Football, rugby the list goes on and on. Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff